Campaigns Wikia talk:Policy expiration policy
Editing Mind if I rename it "Policy expiration policy"? That name would make more sense. --whosawhatsis? 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :I think I like that name more. :) --ШΔLÐSΣИ 23:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :: ok done Iasson 08:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC) :::In the future, please use the "move" function rather than creating new pages and setting up redirects. Renaming pages this way preserves histories, while the method you used does not. --whosawhatsis? 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Discussion I am strongly opposed to this. A policy, once enacted, should remain in effect until removed by conscious effort, including another vote. Constantly re-voting on policies will detract from the purpose of the site. If it becomes clear that a policy was ratified that should not have been, that can be dealt with, but this policy would have us assume that all policies are bad ones. Not only does it create more work to keep a good policy in place, but it also makes it take longer to fix or remove one that is bad. This might make sense if we were, say, passing bills "temporarily" increasing executive power and suspending Habeas Corpus, but that is not the case, and I would be opposed to any analog of such being proposed. Democracy doesn't always bring about an ideal outcome, but in order for it to work, you have to assume that the outcome will be good and provide a way to deal with it if it is not, rather than dealing with all outcomes as if they are bad. Policies voted upon by direct democracy are not like the elections of a representative democracy, in which the dependability of ones representation must constantly be evaluated. If more people show up who disagree with a policy, they can propose to have it modified or removed, but until that happens, we have to assume that the policies that have been previously enacted are good ones. --whosawhatsis? 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ::Thats correct, I am not proposing all policies to expire. What I propose is to have some policies to expire in a short time period, while other policies should be defined to expire after 75 years, a period which is the lifetime of a human beeing and should be considered as the maximum expiration period. I think it does not make sense for someone to propose a 75 years long standing policy without giving to the voters the chance to re-vote. :: On the other hand imagine a stong majority of trolls, or a mob, which constantly changes policies and reverts them, whithout giving them the chance to bind eachother and to be tested and to be applied in real time conditions. Is this correct? You vote for your goverment for four years, and the constitution does not allow you to change your goverment immediatly after, until your goverment ends their program. Why not doing the same for policies? You may think that a policy is a nut, and you dont want to give to it a chance, and this is because you unconsciously believe that it will last for ever. But it would be more easy for you to give a chance to a policy, if you know that the kingdom of that policy will end some day. And this is what PEP is asking you. Give to PEP a chance. ::Finnally, note that the minimum allowed expiration date is defined to zero, and in that case PEP is considered identical to the Campaigns_Wikia:Policy_amendment_policy.Iasson 08:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ---- All policies are always under review, but the principles need to hold true. I think having a confirmation vote on certain things might be a good idea, but 3 months is way too short. Additionally, each time we look at an amendment to a policy, it's basically going to be a confirmation vote on the policy itself. I think the intention is good, but it's not practical or a good use of our time to rehash over and over. This should be combined with the Policy Amendment procedure. Chadlupkes 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC) :: A PEP A_case having 0 expiration time is identical to PAP. A PEP U case can not be expressed using PAP terms. Although PAP seems to contradict PEP, we may find a way to combine them, and PAP is actually a subset of PEP. We may put a tag in the front page of policies, and state wheither this is a PAP or a pure PEP type policy.Iasson 09:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)